GUARDLING Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Well, with that remark, I was having a little fun at the expense of those commenters who have, in a half-dozen or so posts over the past week, uttered variations on "It's like people want DCI to fail". The point being: that reply works as well for the doubters of 1981 as for the doubters of 2015. Just because you question the 2015 numbers doesn't mean you want DCI to fail, and just because you question the 1981 figures doesn't mean you think DCI was a failure in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Exactly. There has been no " thrashing " of this article by anyone so far ( with no need to, imo ). The article, (as you correctly observed ) was referring to the " Indianapolis " period. But will the ever so clever liberties with the article wording have some unknowing people believe that this was the largest DCI attendance ever ? Sure. I'd say so. You and me both caught that, and so didn't others here. This is where on occasion, despite the misinformation, and attempts at revisionist history on here and elsewhere from time to time, we do have the ability here set the record straight for accuracy purposes on a number of topics here on DCP. That said, as written, this particular article here in fact ( due to the clever wording ) is an accurate article in what it actually says re recent. DCI attendance. I caught the distinctions right away.....and didn't care. It's a PR piece. and really, to the majority of people following drum corps today, they don't care what attendance was anywhere else. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yeah, it does almost seem that some people do not want to hear that DCI was successful in the past. i'm thrilled when DCI is successful period. i'll be even more thrilled when they get good at customer service 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 1981 is absolutely irrelevant in 2015, so bringing it up at all is just plain silly, IMO. There are a LOT of folks who -- no matter how you try to explain it -- will never understand that 1981 is irrelevant in 2015 Tell DCI, then. They are the ones who use the language about "record-setting", which renders the whole era 1972-present pertinent to the conversation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Tell DCI, then. They are the ones who use the language about "record-setting", which renders the whole era 1972-present pertinent to the conversation. Q.E.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Tell DCI, then. They are the ones who use the language about "record-setting", which renders the whole era 1972-present pertinent to the conversation. Discussing champs they made it very clear in the first sentence that they were talking about Indianapolis.Not to mention, this is a press release, not a government filing of some type. So no, 1972+ is not pertinent to the conversation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Discussing champs they made it very clear in the first sentence that they were talking about Indianapolis.Not to mention, this is a press release, not a government filing of some type. So no, 1972+ is not pertinent to the conversation. No, the press release was not clear. That first sentence you allude to says this: "Drum Corps International (DCI) ended an incredible record-setting national tour with the highest paid attendance in Indianapolis at the World Championship Finals at Lucas Oil Stadium." The way this is written, it says that there was a national tour that was record-setting in some yet-to-be-specified way, and the event with the highest paid attendance of that tour was the last event, the finals in Indianapolis. Later, the press release treats championship week in more detail: "The exceptional statistics throughout the season led perfectly into the 3-day finals in Indianapolis where a record-setting 22,085 fans reveled in an electrifying finish at the Saturday night finals – up an incredible 18.7% over 2014. The 3-night combined paid attendance was up 16.3% over 2014 and each of the three nights were individually the highest paid attendance for that night of the competition – records all around." The first sentence is not clear on whether the record being set is for finals all-time, or just Indianapolis. However, the second sentence states that all three rounds of championships set "records" - not just for Indianapolis, but "for that night of the competition" unconditionally. That is certainly not true for Saturday, and that is why people start referring back to 1981 to point that out. Maybe the writer meant to say that these were records for the Indianapolis-based events, but failed to specify. Without knowing the history (which you deem "irrelevant"), I could not even create such doubt, much less give the writer the benefit of that doubt. Bottom line - DCI has some great attendance news, and atrocious grammar. At least we agree on the former. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Heh, first sentence ranks up there with ye olde "after they age out they can't march drum corps anymore". Was it the highest Indy ever had or highest ever and happened to be in Indy? But since people who know DC know what it means it's OK right? And for newbies who don't know better and do some checking it's WTH???? Edited August 24, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 No, the press release was not clear. That first sentence you allude to says this: "Drum Corps International (DCI) ended an incredible record-setting national tour with the highest paid attendance in Indianapolis at the World Championship Finals at Lucas Oil Stadium." The way this is written, it says that there was a national tour that was record-setting in some yet-to-be-specified way, and the event with the highest paid attendance of that tour was the last event, the finals in Indianapolis. Later, the press release treats championship week in more detail: "The exceptional statistics throughout the season led perfectly into the 3-day finals in Indianapolis where a record-setting 22,085 fans reveled in an electrifying finish at the Saturday night finals – up an incredible 18.7% over 2014. The 3-night combined paid attendance was up 16.3% over 2014 and each of the three nights were individually the highest paid attendance for that night of the competition – records all around." The first sentence is not clear on whether the record being set is for finals all-time, or just Indianapolis. However, the second sentence states that all three rounds of championships set "records" - not just for Indianapolis, but "for that night of the competition" unconditionally. That is certainly not true for Saturday, and that is why people start referring back to 1981 to point that out. Maybe the writer meant to say that these were records for the Indianapolis-based events, but failed to specify. Without knowing the history (which you deem "irrelevant"), I could not even create such doubt, much less give the writer the benefit of that doubt. Bottom line - DCI has some great attendance news, and atrocious grammar. At least we agree on the former. I guess it depends on how picky we're wanting to read into a press release from a drum and bugle corps organization. When DCI says this: "Drum Corps International (DCI) ended an incredible record-setting national tour with the highest paid attendance in Indianapolis at the World Championship Finals at Lucas Oil Stadium." I read into that "...highest paid attendance in Indianapolis..." I think it is appropriate to surmise that 1) people who don't know a ton about the long history of DCI paid attendance (read: pretty much everyone, since as it has been said before that DCI attendance figures, particularly paid attendance figures, pre-Dan A. era are not accurate at best, and unknown or made up at worst) are not going to think too much about how Lucas Oil compares wit previous decades of paid attendance 2) people who do know a little bit about DCI attendance history, even just guesstimates of attendance, will know that this attendance figure is likely highest of LOS but likely not as high as other years (like Rose Bowl, maybe?). I think simple reading comprehension + deductive reasoning should suffice for anyone not wanting to make a big deal over literally nothing. I know the US education system is not great, and we're working on improving it via stressing problem solving and deductive reasoning skills, but this is really not difficult unless one is really being super overly critical. I'm not writing this in an attempt to be passive-aggressive jerk, I'm trying to be as blunt and matter-of-fact as possible. I think this press release is fine, not misleading or confusing, and I can't fathom that we're still trying to pick this press release apart as if DCI has lied on tax documents or something 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 No, the press release was not clear. That first sentence you allude to says this: "Drum Corps International (DCI) ended an incredible record-setting national tour with the highest paid attendance in Indianapolis at the World Championship Finals at Lucas Oil Stadium." The way this is written, it says that there was a national tour that was record-setting in some yet-to-be-specified way, and the event with the highest paid attendance of that tour was the last event, the finals in Indianapolis. Later, the press release treats championship week in more detail: "The exceptional statistics throughout the season led perfectly into the 3-day finals in Indianapolis where a record-setting 22,085 fans reveled in an electrifying finish at the Saturday night finals – up an incredible 18.7% over 2014. The 3-night combined paid attendance was up 16.3% over 2014 and each of the three nights were individually the highest paid attendance for that night of the competition – records all around." The first sentence is not clear on whether the record being set is for finals all-time, or just Indianapolis. However, the second sentence states that all three rounds of championships set "records" - not just for Indianapolis, but "for that night of the competition" unconditionally. That is certainly not true for Saturday, and that is why people start referring back to 1981 to point that out. Maybe the writer meant to say that these were records for the Indianapolis-based events, but failed to specify. Without knowing the history (which you deem "irrelevant"), I could not even create such doubt, much less give the writer the benefit of that doubt. Bottom line - DCI has some great attendance news, and atrocious grammar. At least we agree on the former. Isolating single sentences in a vacuum in order to prove them problematic, and then later including more sentences from the exact same release that serve to clarify what is now no longer problematic seems self-defeating. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.